Dionysius1: I don't like the weekend puzzles. They're usually about using combinations which don't win in themselves, but from which other combinations CAN emerge which win. Too indirect for me. The result is that I quite often get the first few moves but don't see how the win is forced. ...

Dionysius1: Whether democracy is a political or moral principle matters to me because I wouldn't want a morally wrong decision to be made by a democratic vote and have people say it couldn't be morally wrong because it was the decision of the majority. "Vox populi, vox dei" - the voice of the people is the voice of god - is sometimes cited to express this kind of thinking. I wonder when the media talk about a "vox pop" piece - where they interview people in the street - are they claiming that the expression applies to the expression of those interviewed? Why would they use half the latin tag if they didn't mean the rest of it?

I wonder when the media talk about a "vox pop" piece - where they interview people in the street - are they claiming that the expression applies to the expression of those interviewed? Why would they use half the latin tag if they didn't mean the rest of it?>

Dionysius1: Good idea. I assume you mean they're not allowed to bring their 21st century knowledge with them (otherwise they'd likely slaughter the opposition). So they'd need to go back and learn the moves, then the strategies and techniques with what instruction there was available (books, recorded games, etc) and use only what talent they had to make themselves better than the opposition. So then the only difference would be their innate talent. If they are allowed to bring that back with them it will be interesting to see whether that is greater than it would have been in the 19th century. Have our pattern recognition skills improved? No idea. Our memory skills? Probably not imo: they were probably more reliant on them and used to using them then.

Dionysius1: Of course 9though I've only just thought of it, the patterns that are useful to chess players involve 4 dimensions, not just 3. I mean it's not very useful to remember positions, it's what happens next that makes the difference. I wonder whether the 100,000 (suspiciously round figure that it is) takes that into account. If the significance of each starting position for a combination is as the start of 4 moves, then the 100,000 positions might resolve to 25,000 combinations for example.

Dionysius1: I persuaded a friend to try out a variation on chess which I've been interested in for a while. I think it might be the most minimal change possible, and yet it does make things very different and interesting. Set up the pieces exactly as you would at the beginning of any normal game, and then just change seats with your opponent. You still have the colour you had when you set the pieces up, you're just sitting further away from them, and as you develop your pieces/move your pawns, they're coming towards you, not going away. I'd be interested in reading of any impressions people have if they've played this way.

Here as black I should have been looking out for back row checks that I could use. From the second whitle played 14. Kh1 I should have been thinking "Ahah - he can't get his K off the back rank, not with the pawns at g2 and h2". Instead I got absorbed in middle of the board pieces and whether I was in a lot of danger around d6 and f7 (According to Stockfish I was)...14... Bb7 15. c3 Nc6. 16. Nf5 Be8 17. Bxd5 Qd7 18.Nd6 Bxd6 19. exd6 Re1+ 20. Qxe1 Qe4
By now I'm over the worst, but ...

diceman: <Dionysius1:
I'd be interested in reading of any impressions people have if they've played this way.>

When I studied chess, played over games. I always tried to view the game from the winning side, if possible.
I cant tell if it made any difference.
(You have no A/B comparison)
...but I cant see how it would hurt.

While that just deals with the mechanics of learning,
the best actual experience comes if you play the openings you face.

It's one thing playing over the moves sitting where your opponent would have sat. It's another one creating a game in actual combat while sitting in your opponent's seat. It was both the feeling of being "behind enemy lines" and having your own side coming at you that was hard to get used to.

I didn't feel tempted to move the black pieces I was sitting behind, but I did have to remind myself that when the pieces nearest to me were in trouble, I was doing well.

We didn't try with clocks - reaching over for the other button (we still have clockworks) would have felt too extra weird.

OhioChessFan: <A thought on the long-running speculation about how the old champions would do against the current ones. Would they even want to play the way the game is today?>

19th century chess was a lot more fun. White initiates a Kingside attack, Black handles it or not, game over. Just as sports is getting too much into scientific method and numbers crunching, likewise chess. I think. I mean, sports and chess are games. Do we really have to analyze them to death? I guess so, because people want to win games, and that's how you do it, but a lot of the charm of the particular game is lost in the process.

As for 20th century players, I suspect Alekhine and probably Botvinnik would love to have engines available for analysis and would fit right in.

Dionysius1: I think you're right. For example I've been doing a fair bit of tactics training recently and getting better at it. But I'm getting too caught up in the analysis, and not having as much fun.

I love those moments when I'm surprised to discover some nice tactic, but being told there is one and to find it is a bit like going back to school and doing homework. I suppose in short for me there's no substitute for playing another human being and sharing the pleasure.

I like your point about Botvinnik, but I wonder about Alekhine. I read somewhere that he could get shirty if someone pointed out where he'd gone wrong, and was a bit prone to making stuff up. He mightn't have liked the computers, which are no respecters of persons!

Up to about 1650 Glicko (a bit like Elo), I was solving everything on the basis of spotting what looked like a pretty move and investigating it. That would either solve the problem or put me on the right track.

Above that I've gone from solving everything to solving almost nothing. The real solutions turn out to be the messy looking moves and feel unsatisfying.

And my motivation for doing the puzzles has fallen like a stone.

It looks like if I'm going to be successful beyond 1650 (which seems like average club player level) I'm going to have to either:

a. look for ugly moves and hope that I come to see the beauty in them that at the moment I need as my reward for the effort

or

b. Think of playing better chess as less than an aesthetic exercise and more of a sport where the pleasure of winning is my justification.

Dionysius1: Isn't the idea that over time by solving lots of puzzles we become sensitized to the kind of positions where they arise. I like the idea of being able to say to myself in a live game: "Now here's the kind of position I've seen in puzzles. I bet there's a winning move somewhere".

tpstar: <Dionysius1> Tactics are the tools of chess, and the better tactician typically wins. Moreover, tactics and strategy go hand in hand; a good tactic can often overcome a bad strategy, while a good strategy can only rarely overcome a bad tactic.

I advise advanced juniors to practice 10 puzzles per day, then 100 per day if they are preparing for a tournament. Yes this becomes "homework" but it is also a fundamental part of improvement. Just like athletes lift weights and jump rope even though it has nothing to do with their sport, we practice solving puzzles to stay sharp and learn pattern recognition. <diceman> makes the point that all chess puzzles are contrived by definition; you know "something's there" so your analysis tree starts with checks and forcing moves. A great way to improve is to find decisive games in this database without any kibitzing comments yet, then figure out why they resigned. If you are unsure, you could post, "I think White wins with 40. Rf7+" and see if anyone concurs, or others have simply asked, "What's the finish?" and someone will invariably answer.

Another great way to improve is through posting your games in your chessforum for advice and analysis, looking for improvements. From your last diagram:

21 ... Rd8 wins a piece as White has a weak back rank; 22. Bb3 Qd1+! mates, or 22. c4 bxc4 doesn't help. White would probably get one Pawn for the piece with 22. Bxf7+ Kxf7 23. Be3 and now you don't want 23 ... Qd1+?? 24. Rxd1 Rxd1+ 25. Bg1. A pin against a mate threat is called a Terminal Pin, so the Bd5 is pinned against the potential mate threat on d1.

You could study puzzles by theme (Mate, Fork, Pin, Skewer) as a teaching tool; my students and I prepare puzzle sets based on our own games. If you don't like knowing the motif first (e.g. "Knight Fork" is a giveaway), there are mixed bag sets where you aren't told what to find.
User: WTHarvey has thousands of free mixed bag puzzles on his site. Good luck. =)

diceman: <Dionysius1: Isn't the idea that over time by solving lots of puzzles we become sensitized to the kind of positions where they arise.>

One thing you also need to take into consideration,
the openings you play.

I was a positional player. Played the English with white.
Most of the Frank Marshall's of my day told me I was
probably “missing” tactics by playing positionally.
However, when run through the computer, my pre-computer
games show that I didn't miss much.

Dionysius1: Thanks - it's great to read your comments! I go for 10 correct solutions in a row, or how many can I solve before the kettle boils. Lessons I'm learning: forks etc don’t have to be of pieces – they can be a fork of a piece and a positional advantage. Some wins are opportunistic – all my pieces can be aimed at the opposing king side, but he’s got a loose piece on the queen side. The solution is nearly always simpler than I think it is.

Someone asked me recently “how can people play blindfold simultaneous?" I think for grand masters chess might be like a language and a game be like a conversation. We can all keep more than one conversation going at a time can’t we?

Dionysius1: Something that studying tactics doesn't seem to help with is being ready for my opponents' tactics.

Puzzles always imply "what can you do to win?" not "what tactics does your opponent have?" And it is significant that in puzzles you're always sitting behind the pieces which have the winning tactics.

I might, if I chose to make the time for it, take a game which is won on a puzzle style tactic, take it back a few moves before the tactic and ask myself "if I was the opponent, when could I have spotted this, and stopped it (and how)?"

Otherwise the results of my games are just likely to be based on who spots their tactical opportunity first!

Dionysius1: Yes, maybe it is another version of just being able to calculate. I just need to be able to focus on my opponent's intentions more. My temptation with developing a puzzles mentality is to assume the other side is just there to cooperate.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged
in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.